What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Your Perception - Twitter And Bias (1 Viewer)

Do you perceive Twitter to be:

  • Very biased in favor of Conservatives

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Somewhat biased in favor of Conservatives

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Neutral

    Votes: 52 57.8%

  • Somewhat biased against Conservatives

    Votes: 15 16.7%

  • Very biased against Conservatives

    Votes: 22 24.4%
  • Total voters
    90
Mister CIA said:
Not a lot of deep thought put into this take, but I think almost all the hullaballo over Twitter could be eliminated by requiring a nominal fee to post on the platform, say $10/yr, and requiring a unique payment method per person to eliminate bad faith actors from funding anonymous accounts in bulk. Heck, make it $25/yr and throw in an ad-free experience and I'd pay - and I rarely post comments on Twitter.  If we want to insist upon the town square analogy, you can only be one be one person in the town square, and you in fact must be a human ... until our robot overlords take over.
Click to expand...
This would kill Twitter. People have been talking about charging for social media and getting rid of ads for as long as social media has existed. Some people have even tried this model. But the truth is there is only a very small proportion of the people that are willing to pull out their credit card and pay. And capturing only a small percentage of the people would effectively kill any social media site.

Coincidentally, this is why almost all mobile games use the freemium model now. Remember when they used to cost $1.99. That's a pretty small fee. Much more profitable to show ads to the 99% of people not willing to open their wallet, and milk the other 1% with in-app purchases.

 
tymarsas said:
This would kill Twitter. People have been talking about charging for social media and getting rid of ads for as long as social media has existed. Some people have even tried this model. But the truth is there is only a very small proportion of the people that are willing to pull out their credit card and pay. And capturing only a small percentage of the people would effectively kill any social media site.

Coincidentally, this is why almost all mobile games use the freemium model now. Remember when they used to cost $1.99. That's a pretty small fee. Much more profitable to show ads to the 99% of people not willing to open their wallet, and milk the other 1% with in-app purchases.
Click to expand...
You're very probably correct, sadly.

 
tymarsas said:
This would kill Twitter. People have been talking about charging for social media and getting rid of ads for as long as social media has existed. Some people have even tried this model. But the truth is there is only a very small proportion of the people that are willing to pull out their credit card and pay. And capturing only a small percentage of the people would effectively kill any social media site.

Coincidentally, this is why almost all mobile games use the freemium model now. Remember when they used to cost $1.99. That's a pretty small fee. Much more profitable to show ads to the 99% of people not willing to open their wallet, and milk the other 1% with in-app purchases.
Click to expand...
Awesome - let's make this mandatory then!!  ;)  

 
Juxtatarot said:
If Elon were to share the algorithms, Reich’s main point mostly falls apart. However, Reich has a good point about Elon’s habit of blocking people.
Click to expand...
How so?  

This is obviously a function of my TL, but in my world Reich was universally mocked by everyone for this particular column.  (He's not taken seriously by people on the center-left and everyone to their right).  It seems obvious that ignoring a person you don't want to listen to is a qualitatively different thing than erasing a person that you don't want other people to listen to, and to the degree that Reich doesn't understand the difference he deserves the ridicule he got.

I consider myself to be, for all practical purposes, a free speech absolutist.  I have a very small number of people on ignore on this forum, because it's just more pleasant to have the volume turned down on certain approaches to posting.  I don't see any contradiction there.  Those folks are free to post and I'm free to skip over their posts.  Seems like pluralism and tolerance in action.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
How so?  

This is obviously a function of my TL, but in my world Reich was universally mocked by everyone for this particular column.  (He's not taken seriously by people on the center-left and everyone to their right).  It seems obvious that ignoring a person you don't want to listen to is a qualitatively different thing than erasing a person that you don't want other people to listen to, and to the degree that Reich doesn't understand the difference he deserves the ridicule he got.

I consider myself to be, for all practical purposes, a free speech absolutist.  I have a very small number of people on ignore on this forum, because it's just more pleasant to have the volume turned down on certain approaches to posting.  I don't see any contradiction there.  Those folks are free to post and I'm free to skip over their posts.  Seems like pluralism and tolerance in action.
Click to expand...


A free speech absolutist should allow everyone to read and reply to a tweet. In principle, it’s similar to why Trump couldn’t block people.

FBG ignored users is different. You are not restricting them. You are restricting yourself.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
How so?  

This is obviously a function of my TL, but in my world Reich was universally mocked by everyone for this particular column.  (He's not taken seriously by people on the center-left and everyone to their right).  It seems obvious that ignoring a person you don't want to listen to is a qualitatively different thing than erasing a person that you don't want other people to listen to, and to the degree that Reich doesn't understand the difference he deserves the ridicule he got.

I consider myself to be, for all practical purposes, a free speech absolutist.  I have a very small number of people on ignore on this forum, because it's just more pleasant to have the volume turned down on certain approaches to posting.  I don't see any contradiction there.  Those folks are free to post and I'm free to skip over their posts.  Seems like pluralism and tolerance in action.
Click to expand...


I thought Reich trying to make a negative out of Musk not wanting someone to have a twitter account that constantly displayed the location of his plane was interesting. Wouldn't most people be opposed to having the location of their car displayed 24/7 for the public to see?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider said:
Nobody here who should read that, will.
Click to expand...


I wonder how different the tone piece would be if the writer would start from the position that Twitter is a place where the entire platform's moderation need a complete overhaul and the current leadership need to be replaced.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
I thought Reich trying to make a negative out of Musk not wanting someone to have a twitter account that constantly displayed the location of his plane was interesting. Wouldn't most people be opposed to having the location of their car displayed 24/7 for the public to see?
Click to expand...
Yep.  To be fair to Reich, I do think public figures have a lower expectation of privacy than random people, but flight tracking is potentially a personal safety issue and I can't fault anybody for wanting to not have your location and travel plans broadcast to the entire planet. 

 
Snotbubbles said:
I wonder how different the tone piece would be if the writer would start from the position that Twitter is a place where the entire platform's moderation need a complete overhaul and the current leadership need to be replaced.  
Click to expand...
Maybe it would depend on if the writer produced some proof that moderation needed to be overhauled.

I mean, I understand that for all people, it should just be enough when randos online say, "oh come on!! Twitter is so bias!"

But some some people are sticklers for, you know, proof. 

 
Twitter moderation may get a workout tonight as Libs of Tik Tok will be on Tucker Carlson.  I’m not sure why the left should be offended - but they will.  They are a great follow if you are a conservative.

 
@LibsofTikTok - all they do is post the exact videos of real Liberals talking, all of which is published on the internet.  Most of it is crazy radical teachers talking about what they are teaching our children, and videos of them going nuts on camera.  None of the videos have been altered.  In one video a teacher calls a kid a "piece of shlt" and says he will call the police because the kid pulled his mask down.  Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz accuses the owner of LibsofTikTok of being anti-gay, then today doxxes her and publishes her name and address.  WTF is going on here?  How did we get here?  Where will this end? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
@LibsofTikTok - all they do is post the exact videos of real Liberals talking, all of which is published on the internet.  Most of it is crazy radical teachers talking about what they are teaching our children, and videos of them going nuts on camera.  None of the videos have been altered.  In one video a teacher calls a kid a "piece of shlt" and says he will call the police because the kid pulled his mask down.  Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz accuses the owner of LibsofTikTok of being anti-gay, then today doxxes her and publishes her name and address.  WTF is going on here?  How did we get here?  Where will this end? 
Click to expand...
Lorenz is such a fraud. Reporters like her are exactly what is wrong with the media today. Ten years ago I wouldn't have called her a reporter and would have felt it was an insult to the profession. Now, reporter seems to just be a great description 

 
She's no more of a reporter than I am.

What she is is a useful tool.   And then she has the audacity do an interview and starts bawling like a baby about the supposed harassment SHE'S been getting.

Not only is she a liar, but also fraud.

 
BladeRunner said:
She's no more of a reporter than I am.

What she is is a useful tool.   And then she has the audacity do an interview and starts bawling like a baby about the supposed harassment SHE'S been getting.

Not only is she a liar, but also fraud.
Click to expand...
She should be doxxed more.   She took her job  and tried to ruin innocent peoples lives.  They can go after the editor also, she OKed it.   This is the media that Tim raves about.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
@LibsofTikTok - all they do is post the exact videos of real Liberals talking, all of which is published on the internet.  Most of it is crazy radical teachers talking about what they are teaching our children, and videos of them going nuts on camera.  None of the videos have been altered.  In one video a teacher calls a kid a "piece of shlt" and says he will call the police because the kid pulled his mask down.  Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz accuses the owner of LibsofTikTok of being anti-gay, then today doxxes her and publishes her name and address.  WTF is going on here?  How did we get here?  Where will this end? 
Click to expand...


Do you have more details on the bolded?

 
Libs of Tik Tok vs. Taylor Lorenz seems like a classic case of donk-on-donk violence.  Except one of these people is some rando, and the other one works for the Washington Post (!).  

I'm familiar with Libs of Tik Tok.  I don't follow that account, but people who I do follow RT it at me on a fairly regular basis.  This account does three related things that I think exemplify the bad side of social media:

1) Nut-picking.  For those not familiar with the term, "nut-picking" is the opposite of cherry-picking and exactly what it sounds like.  Tribe X and Tribe Y both have some highly-intelligent, articulate, thoughtful members.  They also both have some nuts in their ranks.  Nut-picking occurs when people from Tribe X intentionally select the nuttiest members of Tribe Y to act as stand-ins for their entire tribe.  That harms members of Tribe X by giving them a warped view of the quality of thought within Tribe Y.  If you belong to Tribe X, you should strive to engage with the strongest members of Tribe Y, not their weakest.  But members of a tribe love to feel superior to the other tribe, and nut-picking makes that easier.

2) Two-minutes hate.  Every day there is a main character of Twitter, etc. etc.  This is an emotionally and intellectually unhealthy activity, as Orwell presciently noted.  But it's great for enforcing tribal loyalty. 

3) Dogpiles/cancellation.  When I see a video from Libs of Tik Tok (in the unlikely event that I actually watch it), I might chuckle or roll my eyes, but that's it.  There are millions of people on Twitter.  Some of them are normal, well-adjusted adults like me, and some of them are sociopaths.  The sociopaths don't stop at eye-rolls.  They pile on.  They make death threats.  They call people's employers.  If you have a big account with lots of followers, and you turn your eye toward some random person, you are going to subject that person to a litany of abuse that at best is bullying and at worst is a deliberate attempt to deprive that person of the ability to earn a living.  Sometimes people with big accounts do this thoughtlessly, but some of them do it deliberately.  I don't know about Libs of Tik Tok, but I'm inclined to think that the owner of that account knows what they're doing.  That's kind of evil.  Of course, Taylor Lorenz is famous for this exact activity herself, which brings me back to the point about donk-on-donk violence . . . 

If I owned Twitter, I might be able to be talked into banning an account like Libs of Tik Tok.  If I owned the Washington Post, I would not have beclowned myself by hiring Lorenz, and I would be looking to correct that mistake this morning.  I understand that the real takeaway here is that the Washington Post is operating on approximately the same level as a crank housewife with an anonymous Twitter handle, but this account doesn't really deserve to be defended on the merits IMO. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Libs of Tik Tok vs. Taylor Lorenz seems like a classic case of donk-on-donk violence.  Except one of these people is some rando, and the other one works for the Washington Post (!).  

I'm familiar with Libs of Tik Tok.  I don't follow that account, but people who I do follow RT it at me on a fairly regular basis.  This account does three related things that I think exemplify the bad side of social media:

1) Nut-picking.  For those not familiar with the term, "nut-picking" is the opposite of cherry-picking and exactly what it sounds like.  Tribe X and Tribe Y both have some highly-intelligent, articulate, thoughtful members.  They also both have some nuts in their ranks.  Nut-picking occurs when people from Tribe X intentionally select the nuttiest members of Tribe Y to act as stand-ins for their entire tribe.  That harms members of Tribe X by giving them a warped view of the quality of thought within Tribe Y.  If you belong to Tribe X, you should strive to engage with the strongest members of Tribe Y, not their weakest.  But members of a tribe love to feel superior to the other tribe, and nut-picking makes that easier.

2) Two-minutes hate.  Every day there is a main character of Twitter, etc. etc.  This is an emotionally and intellectually unhealthy activity, as Orwell presciently noted.  But it's great for enforcing tribal loyalty. 

3) Dogpiles/cancellation.  When I see a video from Libs of Tik Tok (in the unlikely event that I actually watch it), I might chuckle or roll my eyes, but that's it.  There are millions of people on Twitter.  Some of them are normal, well-adjusted adults like me, and some of them are sociopaths.  The sociopaths don't stop at eye-rolls.  They pile on.  They make death threats.  They call people's employers.  If you have a big account with lots of followers, and you turn your eye toward some random person, you are going to subject that person to a litany of abuse that at best is bullying and at worst is a deliberate attempt to deprive that person of the ability to earn a living.  Sometimes people with big accounts do this thoughtlessly, but some of them do it deliberately.  I don't know about Libs of Tik Tok, but I'm inclined to think that the owner of that account knows what they're doing.  That's kind of evil.  Of course, Taylor Lorenz is famous for this exact activity herself, which brings me back to the point about donk-on-donk violence . . . 

If I owned Twitter, I might be able to be talked into banning an account like Libs of Tik Tok.  If I owned the Washington Post, I would not have beclowned myself by hiring Lorenz, and I would be looking to correct that mistake this morning.  I understand that the real takeaway here is that the Washington Post is operating on approximately the same level as a crank housewife with an anonymous Twitter handle, but this account doesn't really deserve to be defended on the merits IMO. 
Click to expand...
The first few times I saw tweets from it there was a curiosity element and some elements of your #1 where its an opportunity to observe some of the craziest #### out there.  Which frankly I think has some value in the proper context.  But of course it is very tribal.  After seeing a few of those I avoid it, its simply a mean account with no constructive intent.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Libs of Tik Tok vs. Taylor Lorenz seems like a classic case of donk-on-donk violence.  Except one of these people is some rando, and the other one works for the Washington Post (!).  

I'm familiar with Libs of Tik Tok.  I don't follow that account, but people who I do follow RT it at me on a fairly regular basis.  This account does three related things that I think exemplify the bad side of social media:

1) Nut-picking.  For those not familiar with the term, "nut-picking" is the opposite of cherry-picking and exactly what it sounds like.  Tribe X and Tribe Y both have some highly-intelligent, articulate, thoughtful members.  They also both have some nuts in their ranks.  Nut-picking occurs when people from Tribe X intentionally select the nuttiest members of Tribe Y to act as stand-ins for their entire tribe.  That harms members of Tribe X by giving them a warped view of the quality of thought within Tribe Y.  If you belong to Tribe X, you should strive to engage with the strongest members of Tribe Y, not their weakest.  But members of a tribe love to feel superior to the other tribe, and nut-picking makes that easier.

2) Two-minutes hate.  Every day there is a main character of Twitter, etc. etc.  This is an emotionally and intellectually unhealthy activity, as Orwell presciently noted.  But it's great for enforcing tribal loyalty. 

3) Dogpiles/cancellation.  When I see a video from Libs of Tik Tok (in the unlikely event that I actually watch it), I might chuckle or roll my eyes, but that's it.  There are millions of people on Twitter.  Some of them are normal, well-adjusted adults like me, and some of them are sociopaths.  The sociopaths don't stop at eye-rolls.  They pile on.  They make death threats.  They call people's employers.  If you have a big account with lots of followers, and you turn your eye toward some random person, you are going to subject that person to a litany of abuse that at best is bullying and at worst is a deliberate attempt to deprive that person of the ability to earn a living.  Sometimes people with big accounts do this thoughtlessly, but some of them do it deliberately.  I don't know about Libs of Tik Tok, but I'm inclined to think that the owner of that account knows what they're doing.  That's kind of evil.  Of course, Taylor Lorenz is famous for this exact activity herself, which brings me back to the point about donk-on-donk violence . . . 

If I owned Twitter, I might be able to be talked into banning an account like Libs of Tik Tok.  If I owned the Washington Post, I would not have beclowned myself by hiring Lorenz, and I would be looking to correct that mistake this morning.  I understand that the real takeaway here is that the Washington Post is operating on approximately the same level as a crank housewife with an anonymous Twitter handle, but this account doesn't really deserve to be defended on the merits IMO. 
Click to expand...
Real simple - the Washington Post just doxxed someone they politically disagreed with.  They  PUBLISHED that she was an Orthodox Jew and LINKED to her address and state licensing details. There was no reason to do this other than to intimidate and perhaps even incite violence.

On top of that, after scrubbing the article they flat out lied and denied publishing any of her personal information.  The Way Back Machine shows otherwise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
Real simple - the Washington Post just doxxed someone they politically disagreed with.  They  PUBLISHED that she was an Orthodox Jew and LINKED to her address and state licensing details. There was no reason to do this other than to intimidate and perhaps even incite violence.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree.  And Lorenz definitely knew what she was doing here.  It's disturbing to see one of our two "national" newspapers doxxing random people over stupid social media beefs.

 
"Newsworthy" is a floating concept. I'll say that about doxxing. On one side of the spectrum, you have pro-doxx arguments about the newsworthiness or private information. On the other hand, you have torts that prevent this, like public disclosure of private fact. 

From a quick search: 

Newsworthiness is evaluated by an examination of several factors, including the social value of the disclosed material, the depth of intrusion into personal life, and the extent to which the person is already in public view. Even Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, authors of a famous 1890 law review article, “The Right To Privacy,” wrote: “The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest.”

 
I wonder if Musk even realizes the guy he is quoting/agreeing with is a prominent conspiracy theorist who used the platform to push Pizzagate?

 
Seems like the tweet is no longer available. How long was it up?  I assume Twitter wouldn’t let it stay after it was reported.

 
Interesting observation and I'm curious what other people see. The "pinned" top story under What's Happening in the top right of the screen hasn't changed for me in three days. Is this controlled by twitter or driven by an algorithm? I don't think it's an algorithm because it's usually a topic or subject I'm not interested in. For three weeks earlier this year it was about the Depp court trial. The headline that's been up there for three days now is "Image of Dr. Oz campaign poster was digitally altered, fact-checkers say..."
 
urbanhack said:
Interesting observation and I'm curious what other people see. The "pinned" top story under What's Happening in the top right of the screen hasn't changed for me in three days. Is this controlled by twitter or driven by an algorithm? I don't think it's an algorithm because it's usually a topic or subject I'm not interested in. For three weeks earlier this year it was about the Depp court trial. The headline that's been up there for three days now is "Image of Dr. Oz campaign poster was digitally altered, fact-checkers say..."
Click to expand...
Same here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Twitter Senior Engineer Admits That Platform "Does Not Believe in Free Speech” (5/21/22 23:45 PST)
Replies
29
Views
781
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
AAABatteries
When did the definition of terms stop mattering?
2
Replies
79
Views
2K
jon_mx
J
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Perceived Bias Opinion: New York Times
2 3
Replies
100
Views
2K
The Commish
The Commish

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top